Fred E. Inbau

1.0k citations
29 papers · 495 · h-index 9

Impact in

Papers in

Fred E. Inbau

24 papers receiving 419 citations

Peers

Fred E. Inbau
Comparison fields: 5 of 73
  • Social Psychology 361
  • Clinical Psychology 190
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 150
  • Law 55
  • Sociology and Political Science 165
Replace Stephen W. Michael with:
Stephen W. Michael United States
Jim Dwyer United States
Steven A. Drizin United States
Fadia M. Narchet United States
Steven M. Kleinman United States
Kathryn Sperry United States
Melissa B. Russano United States
Barry Scheck United States
Amy‐May Leach Canada
James Lea United Kingdom
Fred E. Inbau relative to Stephen W. Michael United States Stephen W. Michael's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×2.5×
Stephen W. Michael · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Fred E. Inbau

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Fred E. Inbau's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Fred E. Inbau with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Fred E. Inbau more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Fred E. Inbau

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Fred E. Inbau. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Fred E. Inbau. The network helps show where Fred E. Inbau may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 6 scholars most cited alongside Fred E. Inbau, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Fred E. Inbau Line = papers co-authored together Fred E. Inbau links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 29 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 1967133
2 197877
3 196364
4 196659
5 196433
6 197433
7
Essentials of the Reid Technique: Criminal Interrogation and Confessions
201325
8 195321
9 196616
10
Criminal Law and Its Administration
19847
11 19664
12 19614
13 19683
14 19993
15
Victims' Rights Litigation: A Wave of the Future?
19772
16
Scientific police investigation
19722
17
Clarence W. Muehlberger 1896--1966
19671
18 19991
19 19991
20 19991

About Fred E. Inbau

Fred E. Inbau is a scholar working on Law, Sociology and Political Science, Political Science and International Relations, Social Psychology and Information Systems, having authored 29 papers that have together received 495 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Criminal Law and Evidence (13 papers), Torture, Ethics, and Law (8 papers), Deception detection and forensic psychology (8 papers), Legal Systems and Judicial Processes (5 papers), International Law and Human Rights (4 papers), Law, Rights, and Freedoms (3 papers), Information and Cyber Security (2 papers) and European Criminal Justice and Data Protection (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Social Psychology (361 citations), Clinical Psychology (190 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (150 citations), Law (55 citations) and Sociology and Political Science (165 citations). Frequent co-authors include John E. Reid, Joseph P. Buckley, Ralph F. Turner, James R. Thompson, Thurman W. Arnold and Yale Kamisar. Their work appears in journals such as The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Michigan Law Review, University of Richmond law review and Harvard Law Review.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact